Error: Unable to create directory uploads/2019/02. Is its parent directory writable by the server?

Discarding the ‘Obama-ppeasement’ Anti-Terror Strategy

Posted on May 25 2010 1:00 pm
Christine Williams is a 9-time international award-winning interviewer. She is Host and Producer of the Canadian National TV program “On the Front Line with Christine Williams” aired on CTS TV. She is also a Senior Advisor to the Hudson Institute in New York.
Be Sociable, Share!
Print This Post Print This Post

The War on Terror happened as a result of the 9-11 Islamist attacks period. Since then, scores of other threats have turned up on our continent; fortunately most of them have been thwarted. As the West grapples with Islamism,  political appeasers have stymied the War on Terror by dividing public resolve, paving the way for the ever emerging breed of saavy terrorists to conquer. 

Appeasers reject words like Islamo-fascism and Terrorism and are quick to use words like: racism and profiling, without recognizing that failure to marginalize terrorists results in the worst form of profiling.  If the public is unable to clearly differentiate Islamists from peaceful Muslims, then every Muslim gets branded every time a terrorist plot is uncovered.

Politically correct Leftists are uncomfortable about calling a spade a spade, despite obvious threats.  President Barack Obama is the epitome of this.  In his commencement speech during graduation ceremonies at the United States Military Academy at West Point on May 22, 2010, he defects from political and social protocol by berating his predecessor–former President Bush–in favor of appeasement:

Setting out his vision for keeping America safe as it fights wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Mr. Obama stressed international engagement over predecessor George W. Bush’s “cowboy diplomacy” and signalled his likely repudiation of Mr. Bush’s justifications for pre-emptive war.

Mr. Obama kept up his outreach to the Muslim world. While accusing al Qaeda of distorting Islamic values, he avoided using terms like “war on terror” and “Islamo-fascists” that Bush employed regularly and which alienated many Muslims.Reuters

Canada is also grappling with appeasement.  The ‘motive clause” is back in the headlines. The clause was introduced in 2006 as an extended part of the Anti-Terror Act, following the arrest of 17 Toronto suspects allegedly involved in a terrorist plot (the early stages of the ‘Toronto 18’ story).  The objective of the ‘motive clause’ was to make a clear distinction between terrorism and other crimes, defining a terrorist act as one committed “for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause.”

But as expected, appeasers had a problem with this.  They raised concerns about the ‘motive clause’ profiling Muslims.  Not long afterward, Superior Court Judge Douglas Rutherford  struck down the clause while working on a case, saying it violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  Rutherford had been presiding over the case of Mohammed Mormin Khawaji –a software developer–  facing 7 criminal charges for his alleged involvement with a British terrorist organization plotting to bomb London and other British targets and wage a Jihad against the West.  Two years later–after wads of cash and wasted time–Rutherford ended up convicting Khawaja of several terrorism offences and sentencing him to 10.5 years in prison.

Now finally the ‘motive clause’ is back in the headlines.  This time, it poised to get an Ontario appeals court blessing under Justice David Doherty.  Leftist appeasers charge to the rescue again:

There may also be renewed warnings that the law could lead to political and ethnic witch-hunts and turn terrorism trials into political and religious trials. Canwest News Service

Reasonable thinking Justice Doherty had this to say about Justice Rutherford’s decision  to strike down the clause…..

“This is stunning to me, this kind of reasoning,” Justice David Doherty said this week of Justice Rutherford’s 2006 ruling.

“Any investigation of terrorist activity is going to look at the motive of the people under investigation. What is the constitutional harm in police investigating whether you have a motive to kill somebody?” Canwest News Service

What is the constitutional harm?  What is the issue of differentiating a terrorist and an Islamo-fascist from a peaceful Muslim?  Why are we weakening Western resolve against our most dangerous enemies:  Jihadists?  Perhaps the leader of the country leading the War on Terror–President Barack Hussein Obama, Commander in Chief of the American Military–can provide some logical answers to these questions.

Be Sociable, Share!
5 Responses leave one →

Leave a Reply

Note: You can use basic XHTML in your comments. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS

Copyright 2019 NewsReal Blog

The Theme Foundry